Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Sockatume writes "Remember the fun of spurious substring matches, AKA the Scunthorpe problem? The UK's advanced 'intelligent' internet filters do. Supposedly the country's great new filtering regime has been blocking a patch for League of Legends because some of the filenames within it include the substring 'sex.' Add one to the list of embarrassing failures for the nation's new mosaic of opt-out censorship systems, which have proven themselves incapable of distinguishing between abusive sites and sites for abuse victims, or sites for pornography versus sites for sexual and gender minorities."

In a word, control. It doesn't matter what flavour of politics you have, there are groups that want to control you, for your own good, of course. Some seek it to gain control as a dictator, but by far the most dangerous, are the ones that actually believe that their beliefs imposed upon society are for the betterment of society. Those are the ones who are stupid enough get their ambitions and capabilities mixed up.

Actually, the last election result was such that no party had enough votes to secure power. It was a hung parliament as a result (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010). The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a Coalition, gaining the required combined majority to form a government.

The British populace voted to allow minorities to dictate policy when they rejected AV.

AV wasn't the be all and end all, it didn't create proportional representation, but it did at least force MPs to have to cater to at least half of their constituents wish to some degree.

That's far better than the status quo our country voted to retain, whereby as little as what, 20% of the population for a constituency, i.e. the Daily Mail readers can be enough in some constituencies to dictate the voice of the entire constituency.

Oh and really, the coalition is the most representative government in decades anyway, a compromise government with 49% of the popular vote is still a far higher proportion than the proportion of combined support of any other ruling party in decades by a margin of as much as about 15%. Contrary to popular belief, the Lib Dems have neutered Tory policy (i.e. blocking the Interception Modernisation Programme, bringing tuition fees from the Â£12,000 the Tories wanted to Â£9,000, blocking removal of the highest tax rate) etc.

So yes, our populace has got exactly what it voted for. We still got exactly what we elected through a horribly broken system of un-representation that our populace agree to continue.

Yes. The Ordinary Man Party in Delhi just came to power and promptly tried to do what the ordinary man in a mob does. In this case try to get the police to carry out an illegal raid based on Ordinary Man prejudices (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25855490 )

When you only get to vote for a government once every 4 years, a lot of shit can happen in the 4 years preceding the next opportunity to get them out of power. Most (all?) democracies really aren't very democratic at all when it comes down to it.

Most of the shit needs to happen just before the election. For example the Great Fire Wall of the UK goes 'er' nuts and blocks all protest and political opposition websites for some strange reason. Now if it does that, it does exactly what in reality it has been designed to do, protect those gullible grown children from reality so they continue to vote for the fantasy where conservative politics serves them and not just the richest 1%.

Say the word "nipple" to the average yank in games chat, gets usually a warning by yanky moderators... Even tho "ingame content is unrated".

Apparently Yanks don't have nipples.

One thing for sure, they sure don't have balls.. Other wise they would stand up and defend their constitution, but no they so far take it laying down for the past decade yet spout on forums about "one more straw and we will huff and puff... and eat more fries"

For example: Edward Snowden. That guy did what he had to do in order to dislodge enough information from the secretive (and apparently illegal) activities within the American government, and then revealed the information to the world.

wants to lynch him.
Maybe slightly off-topic, but the bit I could never quite understand in the States (and I accept you're a lovely bunch of people with differing views), was how the demographic allegiances are flipped related to pretty much the rest of the world.
Usual (for the rest of us) seems to be that the more affluent you become, the more right-wing your views - "I want to keep my money, not redistribute it to the proles" The coasts of your country contribute the majority of tax-base to the country,

Usual (for the rest of us) seems to be that the more affluent you become, the more right-wing your views - "I want to keep my money, not redistribute it to the proles"The coasts of your country contribute the majority of tax-base to the country, and in return get the centre hoovering up the money whilst whining about 'big government

Mass delusions.

The highly affluent who want to "keep my money and not redistribute it" have managed to convince the bible belt that the sinners and gays on the coasts are the rec

When will you wake up to the fact that you, an "enlightened liberal" (since you used the word "delusion" to describe your opponents), is as much a victim of the so-called, in your own words, "mass delusion" as those "deluded nemesis" of yours, the "Bible belt Republicans" ?

Meh, the far left is just as deluded. The rest of the left is a spectrum of what the rest of the world would call "right" and "left".

The Rs want big brother and to funnel all the money to the 0.1%. The Ds want big brother and to spread the money around.

I'm better off with the Ds if I have to pick one even though they're resembling the Rs more and more these days. I would be better off still with a left-libertarian that wants no big brother and an equal playing field, but that doesn't seem to be on offer at this time. The odds of it ever being on offer go up with more Ds and less Rs though.

There seems to be an age cutoff with americans on line. Below all they do is scream about fucking your mum, sucking cock, calling everyone niggers and fags and all kinds of filty insults. Then they become ultra reserved and refuse to acknowledge the mere existence of a nipple.
*speaking broadly, does not apply to all yadda yadda yadda

What US has is not a "firewall" per se, but the effect would, at the end of the day, be similar.

By tapping into everybody's phone, email and whatnot, the US government is sending out a message to all (including the hundreds of millions of the American citizens) that they better be careful of what they wrote/talk (or even think), or they will be subject to very very close scrutiny.

Thus, what available in the USA is akin to "censorship via intimidation".

In the UK the Internet is being censored on a massive scale, they have to ask the government for permission to look at porn, and you can be arrested for insulting Islam or saying something racist. Don't pretend that the US even remotely close to the same.

It's all over the Western society, including what is happening right here, in/.

Don't believe me ?

Try posting a comment which is anti-Liberal and/or anti-Islamic and watch for yourself how your comment would end up be modded into the oblivion.

In China, it's done in name of protecting the national harmony. In the UK, it's done in name of protecting the children. Either way, you've got millions of people who absolutely believe and support in this. They are the majority (and always will be).

The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.

Quite possibly (almost certainly the bit about Slashdot), but they do not necessarily provide a majority with "full support" for the policy. The UK has voluntary voting. Only 65.1% of eligible voters voted in the 2010 election. Outright you can say the 44.9% non-voters are indifferent to the policy. If only 5.1% of the voters voted against this policy, or voted for it only because of other issues, then the majority of voters do not provide "full support" for it. There is no way to know for sure. Anyway

No. Nothing to do with my opinion. There are three broad positions on the policy, not two; support, indifference, opposition. Only one of those positions could be said to offer "full support." The people that did not vote do not care about the policy enough to vote either for or against it, they are indifferent. It is as unreasonable to say non-voters offer "full support" for the policy as to say they fully oppose it. It follows that counting the indifferent in the "full support of millions" would

The real problem is that the government has *not* done this. Instead, they have threatened the ISPs that they *will* if it isn't done voluntarily. And all thanks to one shrill unelected bitch on a committee who got some reason has a direct line to Cameron. The "support of millions" is from the hypocritical mouth breathers at the Daily Fail and the cretins who read it.

I wouldn't say Net Neutrality is dead, only the attempt by the FCC to enforce it without the congress's say-so. Net Neutrality by law instead of arbitrary regulation is still an open door. Of course, that will involve democracy, and thus it would have to be popular (ie.e, actually matter to most people). Right now, most people don't care, but if the problem ever because actual, not theoretical, they would.

I wouldn't say Net Neutrality is dead, only the attempt by the FCC to enforce it without the congress's say-so. Net Neutrality by law instead of arbitrary regulation is still an open door. Of course, that will involve democracy, and thus it would have to be popular (ie.e, actually matter to most people). Right now, most people don't care, but if the problem ever because actual, not theoretical, they would.

Most people don't understand. And even if you were to dedicate a half hour show on prime time television explaining it and why it's important to preserve liberties, people's eyes would glaze over and they still wouldn't understand. Though if some demagogue on radio or TV told them how they should feel about it, tens of thousands would queue right up behind whatever the position is.

Sure, but that's how democracy works: a terrible system, but better than anything else that's been tried. But if (the lack of) Net Neutralityactually stats affecting people, not just geeks working about the future but real problems really happening, then the average voter will care. And most of politics operates on the basis of preventing the average voter from ever caring, so it's possible that some sort of Net Neutrality law will happen if content-based throttling starts reaching the threshold of screwi

Wait until the Great Firewall of The United States, as carried out by business interests

The USA doesn't need a Great Firewall. Anything it doesn't like, it takes down for everybody instead of blocking it.

When Slashdot commenters posted things the Church of Scientology didn't appreciate, the USA didn't block Slashdot for USA visitors, they forced Slashdot to remove the content for everybody.

When 2600 linked to DeCSS, the USA didn't block 2600 for USA visitors, they forced 2600 to remove the links.

When people set up gambling sites that USA citizens were using, they didn't block USA citizens from using them, they seized the gambling sites' domain names so nobody could visit them.

When Dmitry Skylarov wrote an ebook reader that circumvented copy protection so blind people could use it, the USA didn't block people from visiting his employers' website. They arrested him.

These are far from isolated examples. The USA censors all the time without having to bother with a Great Firewall. Why bother blocking something when you can take down the source and send a message to anybody else who might be thinking of doing something similar?

I'm guessing it's one of those things where someone is getting a big fat government contract that they bribed the government into giving them. It's just insult to injury that not only are they taking tax dollars, but they're harming citizens to do so. If it were just wasteful spending, that would be bad enough, but wasteful spending taking away nudity is just rude.

This is my major beef with the Iraq war. Military industrial complex, next time just have the president and congress write you a big check

Democracy is orthogonal to communism. One is a type of government, while the other a type of economy. You can have a democratic communist country, just as you can have a totalitarian capitalist economy. The fact that we have had so many totalitarian "communist" countries is simply because waving a "communist" flag is a great way to attract the downtrodden masses to support your overthrow of the current regime.

In no sane sense can China actually be considered communist, even ignoring the capitalistic reforms they've been experimenting with. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, right? That's not particularly compatible with a group of elites that are radically wealthier than the general populace. From wikipedia

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production

Ergo, if you have a ruling class it's not communism.

In fact arguably the single core tenant of communism is communal ownership of the means of production - and the only way government ownership is compatible with that ideal is if the people own the government. And so far democracy is the only model that even attempts that, for all that it usually fails badly in its efforts. Therefore, a strong democracy is a necessary precursor for communism.

The fact that we have had so many totalitarian "communist" countries is simply because

Labeling something you dont like as communist has been incredibly popular over the last 60 odd years.

Very few of the so called communist countries are actually communist. Even China is only really communist by name. "Communism" has become little more than a dark specter used in propaganda and most people these days couldn't identify real communism of their lives depended on it.

Not that you're wrong about the abuse of the word, but I believe quite a few places identify *themselves* as communist. It's hard to pin that on Allied anti-communist propaganda. Pro-communist propaganda perhaps. Certainly there's little enough evidence to justify the label in either case.

By that logic every government that collects taxes is totalitarian, and you've rendered all further discussion pointless. And you don't need invasive knowledge to get a good first-approximation of communism - very few people have needs outside the norm, excepting medical care. Socialize medicine, education, transportation,etc., and divide the remainder of the Net Domestic Product equally among everyone. Hell, want to quickly impose psuedo-communism a little capitalistic motivation? Just tax everyone 90%, and then distribute the tax revenue equally. On average nothing would change, but most people would be far better off.

Nobody said anything about taking money from anyone - in fact in an ideal communist economy there would be no money to take. Need food, go get some. Need health care, go get some. Don't want to work to support the system, expect to be in some way excised from society.

It's that last one that gets me, and why I think socialism is more promising as it allows for more personal freedom in a self-regulating manner. I happen to think society is infected by hideously wasteful memes and choose to work far less than the norm, because I don't actually need all the extra cruft to be happy, and working to earn it detracts dramatically from the time in which I can enjoy my life without providing any consummate benefits. That becomes problematic in economic systems where everything is shared equally.

Um, the Soviet union probably isn't he best example for anything related to communism - it's practically the poster child for someone cynically waving the communist flag in order to seize power.

As for the rest, I don't see that it necessarily follows. Nothing about communism says it has to be the government doing things, it could as easily be people pursuing their own projects with the proceeds being shared around. Coming from a capitalistic model you could effectively tax all personal income at 100% and then distribute it equally. Obviously we'd need to come up with something a bit less corruptible than modern corporate charters for less-than-government-level collaboration, but I think that's probably doable. It wouldn't quite be "real" communism, but it would be a lot closer than anything yet attempted.

Still, I suspect socialism is a better system in most regards, at least until such time as automation largely eliminates the need for human labor.

She appoints ministers to her government. In essence, she is still the executive. Therefore the government is not actually elected. Members of the House of Commons are elected, beyond that it's practical necessity that Her Maj chooses a Prime Minister who "has the confidence of the House" and tradition that she chooses only from amongst party leaders.

nor enact legislation

Actually, she is the only one with the power to "enact" legislation. Parliament cannot create laws without her consent. She can therefore refuse to sign any le

Actually, she [Queen E.] is the only one with the power to "enact" legislation. Parliament cannot create laws without her consent. She can therefore refuse to sign any legislation she objects to, and she has on occasion done so (typically tax laws that affect her personal wealth. Yeah.)

Citation badly needed. The procedure you've described is called Royal Assent [wikipedia.org], and has been a formality for ages; the last time it was withheld was... wait for it... in 1708. Yes, in theory Her Maj could veto a law, but that would be the end of her political meddling, if not the monarchy itself.

Just goes to show that most of the time when management types start talking about "smart" software, it's just as bloody-minded and primitive as ever. Software is software is software, at least until someone invents strong AI.

This reminds me of the story I read in a/. comment about an overzealous filter that wouldn't let people at his office visit any URL with "sex" in it. There was a problem because they were using expertsexchange.com

Reminds me of a time when I went to access expertsexchange.com on the job, to get a quick solution to a coding issue I was having, back around 2000... the web filter classified it as "sexually oriented" and it took me a minute to realize how the name had parsed out.

You can now get to the site via experts-exchange.com, though it is far less useful these days.

When ever you have people making decisions for the "greater good", they end up making those decisions for their own greater good. So it doesn't matter in the long run what they are censoring, the act of Law in doing so is the objective. The fact that it is not doing what was intended doesn't matter, it just means the censorship must be "refined", and the filters need to be "fixed".Liberty would mean removal of the filters and government intervention from an act of free will, i.e. looking at sexual content on line for example, and an act of responsibility from people, i.e. monitoring their children's internet access. This will never do for Big Government tyrants, because this would imply that people actually have their own freedoms that are not "given" to them by the government, and their free will and responsibility is more important than the governments ability to intervene.

It's a good thing that there's no way to advertise a porn site with obvious keywords like Porn or Sex. In Britain, users should only be able to see safe sites featuring things like tasty Cream Pies and beautiful Pearl Necklaces and innocent Rimming sites to teach kids how to enjoy decorative rims. It's easy to filter out the bad stuff by looking for the obvious bad words.

Gender minority? Since there's 2 genders and the minority is very slightly men (49/51-ish) that would be minority not minorities. Also nobody considers it one.
Anyway, do they have an inline word-destroying filter like some awful 90's filter instead of a point system with an all or nothing blocker? What cheap ass software suite are they even running?
Although, uncompressed and unencrypted plain text in patch file that contain vulgar words is a bit dumb on the developers' part. They shouldn't have allowe

Gender minority? Since there's 2 genders and the minority is very slightly men (49/51-ish) that would be minority not minorities.

They mean transgender people.

Anyway, do they have an inline word-destroying filter like some awful 90's filter instead of a point system with an all or nothing blocker?

No. The article is reporting informal speculation and wild guesswork by some LoL fans as verified truth. The ISPs have reported no complaints, and say their filters don't work that way, so it's probably a complete

“Sadly there is no silver bullet when it comes to internet safety and we have always been clear that no solution can ever be 100 per cent. It requires all of us to play our part,” said TalkTalk spokesperson to PinkNews.

Mistakes were made.... but not by us. It's your fault we had to censor you!

From what I understand, the censoring (whether it is porn or file sharing sites) is all done by the ISP using their own choice of censoring system. With file sharing sites there were court orders listing specific sites, The Pirate Bay for example, handed down to the ISPs (the big ones at least) but the blocking mechanism is put in place by the ISP. I think for porn, the government / courts have nothing to do with which specific sites get blocked, it's just down to the crappy algorithms / blacklists put in p